Your Right to Know

While the “stand your ground” provision has attracted the bulk of the attention in sweeping gun
legislation that passed the House on Wednesday, it is not the only part of the bill that has law
enforcement and prosecutors worried.

A proposed change to how police handle situations involving someone carrying a gun also is
drawing significant attention from those who say it adds confusion to the law and would hinder
efforts by law enforcement in preventing crime.

Under sections of state law dealing with the crimes of inducing panic and disorderly conduct,
House Bill 203 adds: “The exercise of a constitutional or statutory right is not, in itself, a
violation of this section and does not constitute reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal
activity.”

Based on the bill analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Service Commission, the provision
appears to affect a “Terry stop,” named after the 1968 court case from Ohio, that allows police to
briefly detain and possibly frisk a person based on reasonable suspicion.

Ken Hanson, an attorney and legislative chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association, told
lawmakers the provision means “simply carrying a gun is not a violation of Ohio law.” Supporters
have argued that people who are legally carrying guns are sometimes stopped and frisked for no
reason other than that someone else felt the need to alert police.

“Can a citizen exercise a right without risking dangerous, armed confrontations with police?”
Hanson said. “Is the policy of Ohio that a citizen can exercise a right without risking armed
confrontation with the police?”

Police and prosecutors disagree on the impact of the provision, but they do agree that they don’t
like it.

Under current law, for example, if a person carrying a gun is seen pacing in front of a store or
a park playground, an officer can stop and question that person, said Mike Weinman, a retired
Columbus police officer and now a lobbyist for the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio.

Such a stop can help establish why the person is there and whether he or she is carrying the
weapon legally, he said. “It could be as simple as a quick ID check and walking away.”

But under the bill, he said, an officer would be limited in taking such steps because he or she
would need probable cause to stop the person — meaning the person would have to do something that
appeared to warrant an arrest.

John Murphy of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association said he doesn’t read it that way — he
still thinks a Terry stop is possible under the bill. But he said the unique provision makes little
sense and is likely to confuse law enforcement and the courts about its intent.

If there is worry about police overreaction to situations involving the carrying of a weapon, he
said, better training or discipline makes more sense than this provision.

“I think it will complicate prosecution of those offenses, because you can make anything you
want out of that,” he said. “It’s ammunition for a defense lawyer.”